Final Weiner pic leaks onto the Internet; Update: DCCC official calls for Weiner’s resignation
posted at 2:40 pm on June 8, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Reportedly, Andrew Breitbart is furious about the hijacking of his so-called “insurance” picture from Anthony Weiner’s curious notion of constituent, er, outreach. Breitbart told Fox News that he considers radio jock Gregg Hughes’ actions “a complete violation of trust,” but the damage has been done. Hughes, who goes by the nom de plume “Opie” on the air, surreptitiously took a picture of Breitbart’s cell phone while a picture showing a fully erect male penis was displayed — and then published it:
After conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart claimed Monday he had an X-rated photo of Rep. Anthony Weiner, the purported image has surfaced on the Internet. And Breitbart’s not happy.
“I’m mortified,” Breitbart told Fox News.
The image of what are said to be Weiner’s genitals was posted online after Breitbart appeared on the satellite radio show of shock jocks Opie and Anthony Wednesday.
The Atlantic covers the issue briefly:
Unfortunately for Breitbart–and for Weiner–that policy no longer holds, because on Wednesday a pair of radio DJs seem to have leaked a photo of Breitbart displaying the money shot on his iPhone.
Breitbart appeared on Sirius XM’s The Opie and Anthony Show as part of his media tour in which he’s gloating that he was right all along about Weiner. It seems he was so proud of his trophy he had to show it off.
Gawker blames Breitbart for showing off as well, but Breitbart tells Fox that he kept it to prove to other reporters that he wasn’t bluffing. Both takes are plausible, and whether you believe one or the other probably relates to how you feel about Andrew Breitbart himself. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially after all the ridiculous attacks he took in the first few days of the scandal. I’d want to make sure that reporters knew I was telling the truth in that situation as well — and if that also meant at least a subtle bit of gloating went along with the defense, it’s hard to blame him.
I won’t bother linking to the photo itself; each of the links above will get you there in two steps, if you’re really interested. Suffice it to say that it’s exactly what we thought it would be, and other than the provenance of the photo, it’s entirely uninteresting. However, it does provide closure to the oddball who yelled out the last question of Weiner’s presser, asking about the status of his member.
Does this make matters worse for Weiner? Probably. It’s bad enough that Weiner lied about the initial picture for ten days, allowing the media to concoct absurd conspiracy theories and sucker his friends and family into publicly defending him. This last image makes it clear that Weiner didn’t have any judgment whatsoever, unless he figured to someday pose for Playgirl. It’s difficult to see how Democrats will want to go on record defending this kind of self-destructive, bizarre behavior, and it may push more of them to demand that Weiner start his post-political career now rather than after January 2013.
Update: Lest you get too sympathetic for Weiner in his plight, Salon’s Steve Kornacki reminds us how Weiner first won an election:
It was at this point that Weiner’s campaign decided to blanket the district with leaflets attacking his opponents. But these were no ordinary campaign attacks: They played the race card, and at a very sensitive time. They were also anonymous.
Just weeks earlier, the Crown Heights riot — a deadly, days-long affair that brought to the surface long-standing tension between the area’s black and Jewish populations — had played out a few miles away from the 48th District. The episode had gripped all of New York and had been national news. It was just days after order had been restored that Weiner’s campaign distributed its anonymous leaflets, which linked Cohen — whose voters he was targeting in particular — to Jesse Jackson and David Dinkins, who was then New York’s mayor. It is hard to imagine two more-hated political figures in the 48th District at that moment. Jackson just a few years earlier had called New York “Hymie town,” and it was an article of faith among white voters in Weiner’s part of Brooklyn that Dinkins had protected the black rioters in Crown Heights — and thus endangered the white population — by refusing to order a harsh police crackdown. (Two years later, Dinkins would lose to Rudy Giuliani by an 80-20 percent margin in the 48th District.) The leaflets urged voters to “just say no” to the “Jackson-Dinkins agenda” that Cohen supposedly represented. At City Hall, Dinkins held up the flier and branded it “hateful.”
It’s impossible to say what precise effect this all had on the election, but it clearly didn’t hurt Weiner. In a surprise result, he finished in first place — 125 votes ahead of Garson, and 195 ahead of Cohen. Only after the ballots were counted did he admit that he’d been behind the leaflets, claiming that “We didn’t want the source to be confused with the message.” This prompted an editorial rebuke from the New York Times, which noted that “Mr. Weiner’s hit-and-run tactics tarnish his come-from-behind campaign.”
Not that it mattered. The primary was over and Weiner had won. The general election was a formality, and months later he became the youngest City Council member in New York history. Seven years after that, he parlayed his Council spot into a seat in Congress, and you know the story from there. But who knows where Weiner would be today if he hadn’t made such a dark appeal to racial hostility days after a notorious riot?
Probably still in Chuck Schumer’s office … and probably still texting/tweeting/Facebooking his genitalia.
Update: Politico’s Jon Allen reports on Twitter that DCCC’s Allyson Schwartz has called for Weiner to resign:
“In light of Anthony Weiner’s offensive behavior online, he should resign.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
Why so defensive?
Roy Rogers on June 9, 2011 at 12:11 PM
You are both sophomoric idiots. We are on the same side in a war that I am very much committed to. I am applauding Breitbart’s victorious battle, but I am also acknowledging his mistake.
Good leaders honestly assess their own performance and the performance of their forces. Neither of you are good leaders.
blink on June 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM
I’m not focussed on Breitbart’s error. I’m focussed on defending myself from attack simply because I acknowledged the fact that Breitbart made an error.
The real question is why idiots on here are focussed on attacking me.
blink on June 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Does “to monger” mean “to acknowledge”?
blink on June 9, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Why so hostile?
blink on June 9, 2011 at 1:07 PM
I’ll bet Barney Frank has a poster sized photo of Anthony Weiner’s weiner hanging on his bedroom wall now.
LODGE4 on June 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM
I saw all the interviews. He was clear about his wish not to release it (which he didn’t), but coy about what circumstances might compel him to.
I think it’s you who need to re-learn your definitions. Insurance (a term which I find no evidence Breitbart ever used) refers to a guarantee that losses will be compensated in the event of a loss. It doesn’t mean the prevention of loss in the first place. That would be closer to a form of pressure, or even blackmail, a definitional point Breitbart actually addressed.
It doesn’t matter, however, because he didn’t release it. As you admit.
I can see how you’d think that. But it’s my position. I’ve been observing this phenomenon for a long time.
Glad to know you’re omniscient.
Bullsh*t. This is the gravamen issue, which exposes not only your self-loathing conservatism but your breakdown of logic. In the first case, in view of the plethora of slanderers and liars who still have not apologized or retracted (Joan Walsh, Daily Kos, etc.), you maintain that this non-event (which Breitbart immediately explained, unlike the remorseless serial liars above) was “noteworthy.” How? Laughable. It’s “noteworthy” only as a narrative line against Breitbart. Secondly, if he didn’t release it, and he did nothing wrong, how could this be “noteworthy” except as an implication against those who stole the image? By your own set of exclusions, that’s what makes it “noteworthy.”
Dear me. This slur usually surfaces at the end of losing arguments.
In any case, maybe you should have claimed otherwise, because it’s the only thing that would bring coherence to your case. If he didn’t release it, and he did nothing wrong, then nothing here is noteworthy at least with respect to Breitbart.
He “allowed” the photo to be compromised? He “allowed” someone to screw him? Can you not see the inverted morality? Self-loathing conservatism in spades.
Right – it was “compromised” (ridiculously inflated language for what are not state secrets) because the hosts screwed him.
blink on June 9, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Further, this is more illogic. How can you disagree on this point but agree that the photo may have wounded the accusers beyond repair thus obviating the need for “insurance.” You’re contradicting yourself.
This wasn’t a fumble and wasn’t noteworthy and will mean nothing a week from now. It’s important to flush out this reflexive compulsion to question ourselves for not following some delusional Marquis of Queensbury code of conduct.
I’m “sophomoric” and “idiotic” and “stupid.” Fine – but I’m not a caviling bedwetter carrying water for MSM narratives about “noteworthy fumbles.” I’m more interested in going after Joan Walsh at Salon and the rest of the hyenas who lied and will lie again.
rrpjr on June 9, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Well those circumstances certainly didn’t include ‘being tricked by radio DJs.’
Oh please. Do you even know how to use a dictionary?
From Websters: “2. : a means of guaranteeing protection or safety”
I don’t mind that you disagree with me, but your stupidity is a pain in the butt.
Yes, for you, it’s safe to simply assume that I’m omniscient.
Yes and yes. That is exactly what happened. There is nothing self-loathing about acknowledging that fact.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….
After falsely attributing a claim to me, you state that I should have claimed it simply because your little brain can’t wrap itself around anything that isn’t overly simplistic.
Yes, and the term compromised isn’t, in any way whatsoever, narrowly defined to “state secrets” (by which I assume you mean Classified National Security Information). Surely, you agree that sensitive commercial information (which this photo was described as Breitbart to be) can be compromised as well.
I think I’m making progress here.
No, you’re not. You’re a caviling bedwetter obsessed with attacking anyone that acknowledges Breitbart’s error.
But you’re much more interested in going after ME than Joan Walsh as evidenced herein. Obsess much?
blink on June 9, 2011 at 3:09 PM
You said Breitbart referred to the photos as an “insurance policy.” Your words. I can’t find any reference to this by Breitbart. And the term is inapplicable anyway to the use he had for the pictures. He wasn’t using them as an “insurance policy,” but as a sword of Damocles. You can’t see the difference and can’t even follow your own line of reasoning.
He “allowed” the photo to be compromised? He “allowed” someone to screw him?
Try addressing the moral contortions that would have him blamed for someone else violating a trust and stealing the photos. That’s self-loathing dead to rights. But it’s obviously easier to call me “stupid” than discuss the moral inversion of your argument.
This makes no sense. It’s you who can’t wrap your thought process around the contradiction in admitting that he didn’t release the photos, and admitting he did nothing wrong, but then asserting he committed a “noteworthy fumble.” Which is it?
Sure. As you please. But I’m still not a caviling bedwetter carrying water for MSM narratives about “noteworthy fumbles” and you still are. I can simultaneously go after Joan Walsh and also try to root out this weird and deep streak of self-hatred among those on the Right who feel compelled to make “noteworthy fumbles” out of nothing in order to fulfill their sense of noble comportment as prescribed by the mainstream liberal overlords.
If you’re really interested in the total meaninglessness of your “noteworthy fumble”, here’s Breitbart explaining.
http://www.breitbart.tv/breitbart-on-the-x-rated-weiner-pic-leak/
rrpjr on June 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Do you always require so much spoon feeding? I never quoted Breitbart has using the word insurance.
Breitbart clearly stated that he wanted to use the photo as a means of guaranteeing protection or safety. Thus, it’s perfectly acceptable to summarize this as saying that Breitbart wanted to use the photo as insurance.
Allahpundit did exactly this in the first freaking line of this post (so the word “insurance is as much his as it is mine).
Interestingly, AP puts the word insurance in quotes. Are you sure Breitbart didn’t use that word? I’m not.
I can most certainly see the difference, and I can most certainly see the similarity, too. Can you? Using the term insurance is perfectly legitimate given Breitbart’s description and given an acceptable definition of the word insurance.
There is no way you can win this irrational line of attack against me. Cut your losses and focus your obsessions elsewhere.
The DJ’s stole something from Breitbart because he didn’t adequately safeguard it. It’s an error to not adequately safeguard something.
It’s not self-loathing. It’s common sense.
No, it’s equally easy to both call you stupid and to effectively reject your sophomoric assertion of moral inversion.
Of course he didn’t do anything morally wrong, and of course he had no wrongful intent.
Negligence is neither of these. But I realize that this concept is far too complicated for you.
Fixed it for you. But please tell me what you’ve done to “go after” Joan Walsh? Have you put half the energy into that as you have put into your lunatic attack on me?
blink on June 9, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Treadworn responses riddled by wearisome “you’re stupid”s capped by the highly original “FIFY.” We’re all dazzled, I’m sure.
I don’t care what Allahapundit said in the first line of his post. “Insurance policy” is not what the photos were and not the term Breitbart used in his Hannity interview or any other interview I saw, but they were the terms you (disengenuously, it seems) imputed to Breitbart. Did he use the term or not?
You’re going to have do better than tired and peurile deprecations. Try defending your tortured logic. Negligence — or nonfeasance — certainly qualifies as a moral fault. And if it’s not morally wrong and it’s not wrongful intent, what makes it so “noteworthy.” Why make an issue of it?
Like I said, bullsh*te. You put the onus on him. They stole them. They lied to him and stole them. It’s not Breitbart’s “noteworthy fumble.” He’s a friendly and trusting guy and was around friends. That you can’t cut him this break points to your agenda.
rrpjr on June 9, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Insecurity and self loathing projected outwards.
rrpjr on June 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM
rrpjr
hella fight, Bravo
RushBaby on June 9, 2011 at 7:15 PM
I’m assuming that shiny bright objects dazzle you most.
It doesn’t matter if he used the term or not. That’s exactly how he described it. Regardless, why are you so hung on something so meaningless? Not only are you wrong, but even if you were right this issue wouldn’t get you anywhere.
So now you simply want to fabricate definitions from thin air? Negligence most certainly does not equal nonfeasance – neither from a legal nor common usage perspective. Negligence is absolutely not a moral fault.
Again, why are you so wrapped around the axel about this issue? Not only are you wrong, but even if you were right this issue wouldn’t get you anywhere.
You have clearly made this much more of an issue than I. In fact, you are obsessed with this issue. I’m merely defending myself from lunatic attacks.
You are definitely crazy. I’ll repeat this emphatically.
I don’t care if you don’t like it. I don’t care if you disagree.
Of course I’ll cut him a break. I didn’t say that this ruins Breitbart’s credibility. I stated that it damages his credibility – even if that damage is marginal.
When exactly did you become a radical Breitbartista?
Ha ha. Insecurity and projection? Is that the best you got?
blink on June 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6